The Economist Intelligence Unit's Liveability Ranking and Overview assesses living conditions in 140 cities around the world. A rating of relative comfort for 30 indicators is assigned across five broad categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. The survey gives an overall rating of 0-100, where 1 is intolerable and 100 is ideal.

1. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking
and Overview
February 2011
www.eiu.com

2. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview
February 2011
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability
survey
How the rating works
The concept of liveability is simple: it assesses which locations around the world provide the best
or the worst living conditions. Assessing liveability has a broad range of uses, from benchmarking
perceptions of development levels to assigning a hardship allowance as part of expatriate relocation
packages. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability rating quantifies the challenges that might
be presented to an individual’s lifestyle in any given location, and allows for direct comparison
between locations.
Every city is assigned a rating of relative comfort for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors
across five broad categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and
infrastructure. Each factor in a city is rated as acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable or
intolerable. For qualitative indicators, a rating is awarded based on the judgment of in-house analysts
and in-city contributors. For quantitative indicators, a rating is calculated based on the relative
performance of a number of external data points.
The scores are then compiled and weighted to provide a score of 1–100, where 1 is considered
intolerable and 100 is considered ideal. The liveability rating is provided both as an overall score and
as a score for each category. To provide points of reference, the score is also given for each category
relative to New York and an overall position in the ranking of 140 cities is provided.
The suggested liveability scale
Companies pay a premium (usually a percentage of a salary) to employees who move to cities where
living conditions are particularly difficult, and there is excessive physical hardship or notably
unhealthy conditions.
The Economist Intelligence Unit has given a suggested allowance to correspond with the rating.
However, the actual level of the allowance is often a matter of company policy. It is not uncommon, for
example, for companies to pay higher allowances—perhaps up to double the Economist Intelligence
Unit’s suggested level.
1 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

3. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview
February 2011
Table 1
Rating Description Suggested
allowance (%)
80–100 There are few, if any, challenges to living standards 0
70–80 Day–to–day living is fine, in general, but some aspects of life may entail problems 5
60–70 Negative factors have an impact on day-to-day living 10
50–60 Liveability is substantially constrained 15
50 or less Most aspects of living are severely restricted 20
How the rating is calculated
The liveability score is reached through category weights, which are equally divided into relevant
subcategories to ensure that the score covers as many indicators as possible. Indicators are scored as
acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable or intolerable. These are then weighted to produce
a rating, where 100 means that liveability in a city is ideal and 1 means that it is intolerable.
For qualitative variables, an “EIU rating” is awarded based on the judgment of in–house expert
country analysts and a field correspondent based in each city. For quantitative variables, a rating is
calculated based on the relative performance of a location using external data sources.
Category 1: Stability (weight: 25% of total)
Indicator Source
Prevalence of petty crime EIU rating
Prevalence of violent crime EIU rating
Threat of terror EIU rating
Threat of military conflict EIU rating
Threat of civil unrest/conflict EIU rating
Category 2: Healthcare (weight: 20% of total)
Indicator Source
Availability of private healthcare EIU rating
Quality of private healthcare EIU rating
Availability of public healthcare EIU rating
Quality of public healthcare EIU rating
Availability of over-the-counter drugs EIU rating
General healthcare indicators Adapted from World Bank
2 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

4. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview
February 2011
Category 3: Culture & Environment (weight: 25% of total)
Indicator Source
Humidity/temperature rating Adapted from average weather conditions
Discomfort of climate to travellers EIU rating
Level of corruption Adapted from Transparency International
Social or religious restrictions EIU rating
Level of censorship EIU rating
Sporting availability EIU field rating of 3 sport indicators
Cultural availability EIU field rating of 4 cultural indicators
Food and drink EIU field rating of 4 cultural indicators
Consumer goods and services EIU rating of product availability
Category 4: Education (weight: 10% of total)
Indicator Source
Availability of private education EIU rating
Quality of private education EIU rating
Public education indicators Adapted from World Bank
Category 5: Infrastructure (weight: 20% of total)
Indicator Source
Quality of road network EIU rating
Quality of public transport EIU rating
Quality of international links EIU rating
Availability of good quality housing EIU rating
Quality of energy provision EIU rating
Quality of water provision EIU rating
Quality of telecommunications EIU rating
3 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

5. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview
February 2011
The findings of the survey
Little change at the top
The complete Vancouver (Canada) remains at the top of the ranking, a position that can only have been cemented
Liveability Ranking by the successful hosting of the 2010 winter Olympics and Paralympics, which provided a boost to the
and Overview can infrastructure and culture and environment categories. Only petty crime presents any difficulties for
be purchased at Vancouver, although this would be a typical shortfall of any such location. Violence is reportedly on
www.store.eiu.com an upward trend in the city, but the figures need to be put in context. A murder rate of 2.6 per 100,000
population recorded in 2009 is certainly above the Canadian average of 1.8. However, it remains on
a par with the rate in innocuous locations such as New Zealand and Finland, and amounts to one-half
of the US average of 5.4 murders, with New York reporting a rate of 6.3 homicides per 100,000 (both
figures are for 2008).
These advantages are shared with a number of other cities in the survey, and the variation between
surveys is minimal. Just 2.3 percentage points separate the top ten cities, where the only change
in the current survey is a slightly lower score for Vienna. As a result, Melbourne rises to become the
second highest ranked city.
Context is key
A sense of context needs to be applied and offset against subjective judgments when looking at the
best or worst places to live. The aim of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability survey is to draw a
line of relative liveability based on challenges to lifestyle beyond those presented by income or cost of
living considerations. Each factor needs to be considered against what would be ideal or intolerable on
a global level. For example, within a country there may be significant perceived differences between
two cities, but when assessed globally it is more likely that these differences would be marginal.
Conflict is responsible for many of the poorest performing scores. This is not only because stability
indicators have the highest single scores, but also because factors defining stability spread to have
an adverse effect on other categories. For example, the threat of armed conflict will not just cause
disruption in its own right, it will also ravage infrastructure, overburden hospitals and undermine the
availability of goods, services and recreational activities. Africa and Asia account for all 11 cities, with
4 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

6. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview
February 2011
violence, whether through crime, civil insurgency, terrorism or war, playing a strong role. Although
not in the bottom tier of cities, worsening stability relating to violence has seen a 2.5 point fall in the
liveability score of Mexico City.
Harare (Zimbabwe) is the lowest-scoring city at just 37.5%. Despite celebrating 30 years of
independence in April 2010, the situation remains challenging across all indicators. Despite hopes of
elections in 2011, stability and healthcare scores of just 25% and 20.8% respectively highlight a bleak
situation
The top ten cities
(100=ideal; 0=intolerable)
Country City Rank Overall Rating Stability Healthcare Culture & Education Infrastructure
(100=ideal) Environment
Canada Vancouver 1 98.0 95 100 100 100 96.4
Australia Melbourne 2 97.5 95 100 95.1 100 100
Austria Vienna 3 97.4 95 100 94.4 100 100
Canada Toronto 4 97.2 100 100 97.2 100 89.3
Canada Calgary 5 96.6 100 100 89.1 100 96.4
Finland Helsinki 6 96.2 100 100 91 91.7 96.4
Australia Sydney 7 96.1 90 100 94.4 100 100
Australia Perth 8 95.9 95 100 88.7 100 100
Australia Adelaide 9 95.9 95 100 94.2 100 92.9
New Zealand Auckland 10 95.7 95 95.8 97 100 92.9
The bottom ten cities
(100=ideal; 0=intolerable)
Country City Rank Overall Rating Stability Healthcare Culture & Education Infrastructure
(100=ideal) Environment
Sri Lanka Colombo 131 48.5 45 41.7 47.7 66.7 51.8
Senegal Dakar 132 48.3 50 41.7 59.7 50 37.5
Iran Tehran 133 45.8 50 62.5 35.9 50 33.9
Cameroon Douala 134 44.0 60 25 48.4 33.3 42.9
Pakistan Karachi 135 40.9 20 45.8 38.7 66.7 51.8
Algeria Algiers 136 39.4 50 33.3 38 25 41.1
Nigeria Lagos 137 39.0 25 33.3 52.3 33.3 48.2
PNG Port Moresby 138 38.9 30 37.5 44.2 50 39.3
Bangladesh Dhaka 139 38.7 50 29.2 43.3 41.7 26.8
Zimbabwe Harare 140 37.5 25 20.8 53 66.7 35.7
5 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

7. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview
February 2011
Liveability profile: Vancouver
How the best city scores
Liveability rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 98
Relative liveability index (New York=100) 113
Liveability rank (out of 140 cities) 01
Stability EIU rating
Prevalence of petty crime Tolerable
Prevalence of violent crime Acceptable
Threat of military conflict Acceptable
Threat of civil unrest/conflict Acceptable
Threat of terrorism Acceptable
Stability rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 95
Relative stability index (New York=100) 136
Healthcare EIU rating
Availability of private healthcare Acceptable
Quality of private healthcare provision Acceptable
Availability of public healthcare Acceptable
Quality of public healthcare provision Acceptable
Availability of over the counter drugs Acceptable
General healthcare indicators Acceptable
Healthcare rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 100
Relative healthcare index (New York=100) 109
6 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

8. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview
February 2011
Culture & Environment EIU rating
Climate: Humidity/Temperature rating Acceptable
Climate: Discomfort to travellers Acceptable
Cultural hardship: Corruption Acceptable
Cultural hardship: Social/Religious restrictions Acceptable
Cultural hardship: Level of censorship Acceptable
Recreation: Sports Acceptable
Recreation: Culture Acceptable
Recreation: Food and drink Acceptable
Availability of consumer goods and services Acceptable
Culture & Environment rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 100
Relative culture & environment index (New York=100) 109
Education EIU rating
Availability of private education Acceptable
Quality of private education provision Acceptable
General public education indicators Acceptable
Education rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 100
Relative education index (New York=100) 100
Infrastructure EIU rating
Transport: Quality of road network Acceptable
Transport: Quality of public transport Acceptable
Transport: Quality of regional or international links Acceptable
Availability of good quality housing Tolerable
Utilities: Quality of energy provision Acceptable
Utilities: Quality of water provision Acceptable
Utilities: Quality of telecommunications infrastructure Acceptable
Infrastructure rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 96
Relative infrastructure index (New York=100) 108
7 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

9. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview
February 2011
Liveability profile: Harare
How the worst city scores
Liveability rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 37
Relative liveability index (New York=100) 43
Liveability rank (out of 140 cities) 140
Stability EIU rating
Prevalence of petty crime Intolerable
Prevalence of violent crime Undesirable
Threat of military conflict Undesirable
Threat of civil unrest/conflict Intolerable
Threat of terrorism Tolerable
Stability rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 25
Relative stability index (New York=100) 36
Healthcare EIU rating
Availability of private healthcare Uncomfortable
Quality of private healthcare provision Undesirable
Availability of public healthcare Intolerable
Quality of public healthcare provision Intolerable
Availability of over the counter drugs Uncomfortable
General healthcare indicators Intolerable
Healthcare rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 21
Relative healthcare index (New York=100) 23
8 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

10. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview
February 2011
Culture & Environment EIU rating
Climate: Humidity/Temperature rating Tolerable
Climate: Discomfort to travellers Tolerable
Cultural hardship: Corruption Uncomfortable
Cultural hardship: Social/Religious restrictions Tolerable
Cultural hardship: Level of censorship Undesirable
Recreation: Sports Uncomfortable
Recreation: Culture Uncomfortable
Recreation: Food and drink Uncomfortable
Availability of consumer goods and services Uncomfortable
Culture & Environment rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 53
Relative culture & environment index (New York=100) 58
Education EIU rating
Availability of private education Tolerable
Quality of private education provision Tolerable
General public education indicators Uncomfortable
Education rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 67
Relative education index (New York=100) 67
Infrastructure EIU rating
Transport: Quality of road network Undesirable
Transport: Quality of public transport Intolerable
Transport: Quality of regional or international links Uncomfortable
Availability of good quality housing Tolerable
Utilities: Quality of energy provision Undesirable
Utilities: Quality of water provision Undesirable
Utilities: Quality of telecommunications infrastructure Uncomfortable
Infrastructure rating (1-100, 100=Ideal) 36
Relative infrastructure index (New York=100) 40
9 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

11. A Summary of the Liveability Ranking and Overview
February 2011
Purchase the full reports at the EIU store
Ranking & overview - Key findings of the survey and the global city ranking
Global liveability survey - All scores broken down and available by city
Global liveability matrix - A premium interactive Excel workbook of all scores
Worldwide Cost of Living service
To calculate equivalent salaries and compare the cost of living between different cities,
please see our Worldwide Cost of Living service.
10 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

12. While every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy
of this information, The Economist Intelligence Unit
Ltd. cannot accept any responsibility or liability
for reliance by any person on this report or any of
the information, opinions or conclusions set out
in this report.
Cover image - © James Thew/Shutterstock

13. LONDON
26 Red Lion Square
London
WC1R 4HQ
United Kingdom
Tel: (44.20) 7576 8000
Fax: (44.20) 7576 8500
E-mail: london@eiu.com
NEW YORK
750 Third Avenue
5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
United States
Tel: (1.212) 554 0600
Fax: (1.212) 586 1181/2
E-mail: newyork@eiu.com
HONG KONG
6001, Central Plaza
18 Harbour Road
Wanchai
Hong Kong
Tel: (852) 2585 3888
Fax: (852) 2802 7638
E-mail: hongkong@eiu.com
GENEVA
Boulevard des Tranchées 16
1206 Geneva
Switzerland
Tel: (41) 22 566 2470
Fax: (41) 22 346 93 47
E-mail: geneva@eiu.com